THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO news and tidbits

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:11 am

sf2la wrote:
Regarding the disparity in lighting between Lisbeth's and the rapist's rape scene, I can make sense of it. The rapist pig got off on raping her. He saw her as a sex object and wanted all the lights on to maximize his experience. Too, she was on the bed so it was easy for him to light her on all sides. Lisbeth didn't get off on raping the fat pig. She got nothing sexual from it and and just wanted to inflict humiliation, pain, and a tattooed message on him. It's possible that even having to look at his penis repulsed her, hence maybe why he's covered up there rather than clipping the frame higher (just a wild guess.) Anyway, I could understand why she wasn't focused on lighting up his fat, disgusting body.

Makes perfect sense to me. Good thought.

tbossmc2000 · Post by **tbossmc2000** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:42 pm

JEC57 wrote:
sf2la wrote:Just a quick comment about nudity in movies and more specifically, DC's nudity - From what Daniel has said, he has no problem getting his 'kit' off (or whatever it was specifically that he said.) I don't for a second think that he's objected to taking off any item of clothes in his films, do you? If he were just a piece of meat, he'd be lucky to make it into pornos. Obviously, he's a lot more than that - a great actor with the good fortune to be handsome (thank you parents) and has taken it upon himself to build that great body to show off in films. Like all actors, the man has an ego. A huge one. He knows what he's doing when he strips off his shirt or pants.

No, I don't think he would object, especially if the story demands it.

Interesting though the final comment from the interview above where he says he hasn't done "the other kind" of movie for a long time. Now he could have been pulling the interviewer's leg or just toying with the gossips, or he could mean he has done things in the past where he felt something was a bit gratuituous.

And that was my point (and I think possibly NBG's?),that the nudity in his films should not be done just with the object of satisfying voyerism. That turns him into a piece of meat rather than a fine actor doing a good job. What's the point of it, if it is not part of the story other than using him as an object of lust?

As I said before, I like looking at his wonderful body as much as the next person, and have certainly taken my turn contributing to things like the"dressing left" thread etc. But there comes a point where (for me personally) there is a line between fun and frolic and treating Daniel like a piece of meat......and it was that point I was trying to make.

The other point was that, outside of the storyline, he should not have to do it to satisfying voyerism. If he wants to pose naked (a la Burt Reynolds in Cosmopolitan....showing my age here ) then that's his choice and he then squarely places himself in that position and would surely not complain.

But just remember his reaction to the blue trunks. He did say later that he chose the trunks, they were chosen to showcase him and create an effect, but he was also dismayed that critical acclaim got pushed to one side because of it . That reaction makes me think that he does think about things like gratuituous versus artistic licence and necessity. And that was part of my point, when one diverges too wildly from the other then he just becomes a piece of meat.

In the US we would consider Hunger soft pron same as OFOTN. Daniel has done some pretty exposed sex in front of the camera.
Can't speak for LITD never saw that one. Sylvia is artistc in the nude scene.
HS making love on the flower sacks was artistic as well. Both were really beautiful love scenes with passion and gentleness. Love watching Daniel so graceful with a woman.

sf2la · Post by **sf2la** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:36 pm

JEC, I understand what you are saying, but I think any concern he had about people only appreciating his physique are unfounded. He's been offered great roles since then. Too, he let him self be the sex symbol in C&A with the ass chap posters. They didn't play up O Wilde; they played up DC. It's just that I think he's okay with this because he's also respected for his acting. I don't ever see him doing a full frontal again though (not usually an A-lister thing to do.)

sasha · Post by **sasha** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:23 pm

I see your point, it's very understandable with the light, but this cloth, that was placed on his 'loins' looked very intentional. I would even understand if the pillow was still covering him. But this tiny loincloth looked bad to me. Maybe they had to do it to escape NC-17 rating?

caramel · Post by **caramel** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:27 pm

sasha wrote:I see your point, it's very understandable with the light, but this cloth, that was placed on his 'loins' looked very intentional. I would even understand if the pillow was still covering him. But this tiny loincloth looked bad to me. Maybe they had to do it to escape NC-17 rating?

I guess I will be focusing more on this

in my next viewing but I thought we see a corner of the pillow hiding his privates (the pillow LS used to sit on for doing his tattoo) - I didn't see any loin cloth.

sasha · Post by **sasha** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:39 pm

caramel wrote:
sasha wrote:I see your point, it's very understandable with the light, but this cloth, that was placed on his 'loins' looked very intentional. I would even understand if the pillow was still covering him. But this tiny loincloth looked bad to me. Maybe they had to do it to escape NC-17 rating?
I guess I will be focusing more on this in my next viewing but I thought we see a corner of the pillow hiding his privates (the pillow LS used to sit on for doing his tattoo) - I didn't see any loin cloth.

Me too, and tboss's abs flex - I thought MB was so not into it in this scene, but apparently I was wrong.

In the revenge scene it looked like a sheet too me.

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:48 pm

Gawd, you guys are killing me.

calypso · Post by **calypso** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:52 pm

Producers Guild Awards

http://www.slashfilm.com/producers-guil ... nt=Twitter

Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award in Theatrical Motion Pictures:

THE ARTIST
Producer: Thomas Langmann
BRIDESMAIDS
Producers: Judd Apatow, Barry Mendel, Clayton Townsend
THE DESCENDANTS
Producers: Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
Producers: Ceán Chaffin, Scott Rudin
THE HELP
Producers: Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, Brunson Green
HUGO
Producers: Graham King, Martin Scorsese
THE IDES OF MARCH
Producers: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Brian Oliver
MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Producers: Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
MONEYBALL
Producers: Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt
WAR HORSE
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg

The Producers Guild of America Producer of the Year Award in Animated Theatrical Motion Pictures:

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN
Producers: Peter Jackson, Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg
CARS 2
Producer: Denise Ream
KUNG FU PANDA 2
Producer: Melissa Cobb
PUSS IN BOOTS
Producers: Joe M. Aguilar, Latifa Ouaou
RANGO
Producers: John B. Carls, Gore Verbinski

sf2la · Post by **sf2la** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:10 pm

Luna, your avi! LOL!
Yeah, the pillow case doubled as a loin cloth. After reading the MPAA rules, I don't think it would have been an NC-17, but who knows. It's just that it looked way too deliberate - not good or real, IMO. Why would Fincher, of all people, do something so noticeably staged? I wish someone would ask him.

caramel · Post by **caramel** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:59 pm

sf2la wrote:Luna, your avi! LOL!
Yeah, the pillow case doubled as a loin cloth. After reading the MPAA rules, I don't think it would have been an NC-17, but who knows. It's just that it looked way too deliberate - not good or real, IMO. Why would Fincher, of all people, do something so noticeably staged? I wish someone would ask him.

You know there is a good chance that the actor that played Nils wasn't comfortable showing his penis to the world particularly if it is not really needed to help the scene (which imo is not). Men are vain when it comes to their treasured bits and who knows his' probably is not proportional to the rest of his body

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:02 pm

caramel wrote:
sf2la wrote:Luna, your avi! LOL!
Yeah, the pillow case doubled as a loin cloth. After reading the MPAA rules, I don't think it would have been an NC-17, but who knows. It's just that it looked way too deliberate - not good or real, IMO. Why would Fincher, of all people, do something so noticeably staged? I wish someone would ask him.
You know there is a good chance that the actor that played Nils wasn't comfortable showing his penis to the world particularly if it is not really needed to help the scene (which imo is not). Men are vain when it comes to their treasured bits and who knows his' probably is not proportional to the rest of his body
She uses that metal dildo to do actual damage so don't we need to see that too? No we don't imo. The way it was filmed was enough to portray the enormity of what was done.

Could be a possibility. Maybe it was as far as he was willing to go and Fincher let him get away with it to not loose him.

I am hoping, the film continues to make money now, as I doubt Fincher is willing to sacrifice his time, if this is not a success.

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:53 pm

So he is IN Paris

From MI6:

Daniel Craig is about to do an interview on France 2 about 'Dragon Tattoo' in a few minutes... maybe he'll mention SF...

No big news from Craig, just that filming will re-start this Saturday (didn't film during the christmas holidays break).

sf2la · Post by **sf2la** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:42 pm

Germangirl wrote:So he is IN Paris

From MI6:

Daniel Craig is about to do an interview on France 2 about 'Dragon Tattoo' in a few minutes... maybe he'll mention SF...

No big news from Craig, just that filming will re-start this Saturday (didn't film during the christmas holidays break).

I'd greatly appreciate it as I talk about HIM
All the time. LOL!!!

Agreed, showing the rapist's penis wouldn't have added anything except maybe to further show how disgusting he is. I believe it's Fincher's call, not the actor's. I think they know going in if nudity is required of them. I say failure to Fincher for positioning the corner of the pillowcase too perfectly.

Germangirl · Post by **Germangirl** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:47 pm

sf2la wrote: Agreed, showing the rapist's penis wouldn't have added anything except maybe to further show how disgusting he is. I believe it's Fincher's call, not the actor's. I think they know going in if nudity is required of them. I say failure to Fincher for positioning the corner of the pillowcase too perfectly.

Hey, have mercy with your No 2

sf2la · Post by **sf2la** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Germangirl wrote:
sf2la wrote: Agreed, showing the rapist's penis wouldn't have added anything except maybe to further show how disgusting he is. I believe it's Fincher's call, not the actor's. I think they know going in if nudity is required of them. I say failure to Fincher for positioning the corner of the pillowcase too perfectly.
Hey, have mercy with your No 2

He's slipping to 2.1